I am very new on this forum compared to you, ive only seen burleson in this thread and one more. But i am glad that this is not the common opinion in America. Every American i have meet has had this opinion, but i guess its just back luck...

--
Best,
Johann Von Ohr

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

How was a couple of planes crashing into a couple of buildings a chance for world peace? History seems to imply that this sort of wishful thinking is, well, just wishful thinking. WW1 was closely followed by WW2. WW2 was followed by a nuclear arms race!

How was a couple of planes crashing into a couple of buildings a chance for world peace?

How could a couple of planes crashing sparked 2 wars, caused controversy and division spanning the entire globe, and resulted in a lasting impact on this generation.. and possibly the next one too.

So who won? Well, only need to look at the world today to see who have lost...

History seems to imply that this sort of wishful thinking is, well, just wishful thinking.

No. When you, as a nation and a government, have most of the world on your side - entire nations and governments - what would you do? Go to war when your military advisers are warning that the problem needs a political solution and that a military one is untenable?

History is and will show the idiot in charge.

WW1 was closely followed by WW2. WW2 was followed by a nuclear arms race!

Point being? +(in a post coldwar world that are actively pursuing nuclear disarmament and stability and peace - despite idiots in charge?)+

"Point being?"
My point is that if world war can't lead to peace, then two aicraft crashing into a couple of buildings certainly won't, either.

"(in a post coldwar world that are actively pursuing nuclear disarmament and stability and peace - despite idiots in charge?)"
Nuclear disarmament is not happening, at least not in the sense of it being designed to lead to zero nukes. Too many Kim Jong Il-types have The Bomb.

YasserRACDBA wrote:
I believe this might be basic question, How to find appropriate block size for building an database to an specific application?

Amusing thread. I'd summarize it this way:

The only way to absolutely verify that a specific block size would be beneficial is by providing a test environment that closely simulates the final proposed production environment and testing several block sizes under load conditions that simulate the final load conditions proposed for production.

This can be an extremely expensive thing to do, in terms of cost, time and resource. And difficult to accomplish when the boss is breathing down your neck to get the system up and in production. Verifying all combination of block sizes, using multiple block sizes, increases the complexity and cost.

Alternates:

You could use your own experience, assuming you have invested the time and effort.

You could use experience from someone else (perhaps unverifiable anecdotal evidence or informal test cases without rigorous documentation) which may cause you to use something other than the default. If your philosophy leans towards faith in others, perhaps blind faith in others, this may be suitable. It may be difficult to quantify the benefit (if any) of using that indicated by experience of others, so if leaning in this direction, it may be worth asking how they determined the specific setting or combination is useful.

You could use (reproducible) test cases. Depending on your philosophical bent, that may or may not be useful. And you need to decide your own level of confidence that using test cases will apply in your case when coming from environments other than your own and with loads other than your final one.

Or you could use the default. Without rigorous reproducible (iow, not just anecdotal) results from somewhere, there is generally little reason to deviate from the default provided by Oracle.

The choice of method is yours. That choice may be influenced by many things including training, management, threat of legal action, philosophy, bluster, and even religion / faith.

I agree. But it was you who said:
+"but only until some idiot that you elected *turned the greatest opportunity for world peace and unity into war*. It said a lot about that idiot."+

Correct.

If that incident could have changed the course of politics in the 21st century, lead to 2 wars and a so-called global war on terror.. despite the relatively small scale of the incident, it had a tremendous global impact. Right?

So there is no arguing that despite it being a couple of planes, it was a very significant event (with many comparing it to a form of a "+Pearl Harbour+" attack, but on civilian targets). My argument is that given that, this same event could have been used to drive global politics differently. And if it could have lead to 2 wars, it also could have lead to a more stable world and made large inroads into world peace.

PS. And events of this magnitude that can change the course of history are few and far in between - thus the great opportunity that was lost.

A Hamburg court has ruled that moderators of internet forums are liable for content posted on their sites. . . The new ruling means if operators do not have enough in-house resources to monitor forums, they should "reduce the scope of their business operations".